R.I.P. Science and Journalism.

[8537]

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

Oh. Well, I was understanding that we were talking about science, here. So, when you brought that up, obviously you were talking about something other than science.

I wonder what the name of his universities journal is......and if anyone has even heard of it.

Obviously he believes that authors never, ever consider prestige or circulation volume when trying to get published.

I mean, a CV with 50 publications from uni "journals" is so much more impressive than 50 pubs in JACS, Science, Nature, etc., right? I honestly thinks he believes everyone is buying that.

Si Modo, you should attempt at least one post where you don't make claims about what I think that are not supported by any evidence. You're making more shit up with every post.

I never said that university journals (the Harvard Law Review for instance) are as "impressive" as JACS, Science and Nature. That's just you being stupid.

 

[Si modo]

The information you provide here was not in the text presented by Westwall.

Ah, you're a denier.

no, I read what was posted. The information you just provided was not in the post.

That's not denial, it's fact.

See, there is this rule at USMB that one cannot post the entirety of a web page or article. That's why they tell us in those rules to post part of it and link to the rest. Perhaps you might want to link to the rest so that you are informed. Or don't get informed and post knee-jerk.

We all have choices.

 

[PredFan]

So, we're all in agreement that Journalism is dead, even if we can't agree that science is.

 

[Si modo]

I wonder what the name of his universities journal is......and if anyone has even heard of it.

Obviously he believes that authors never, ever consider prestige or circulation volume when trying to get published.

I mean, a CV with 50 publications from uni "journals" is so much more impressive than 50 pubs in JACS, Science, Nature, etc., right? I honestly thinks he believes everyone is buying that.

Si Modo, you should attempt at least one post where you don't make claims about what I think that are not supported by any evidence. You're making more shit up with every post.

I never said that university journals (the Harvard Law Review for instance) are as "impressive" as JACS, Science and Nature. That's just you being stupid.

OK. Then you do understand why it is important that the peer-review process at prestigious journals should not be corrupted, right?

We'll just start with that. It's a basic and simple question to establish some sort of foundation for discussion.

 

[westwall]

Here is an example of the poor state of peer review within the world of climatology. Can you point out what is wrong here?







“Reviewer A” responds

Posted on February 10, 2011by Anthony Watts


The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest post here, with no caveats, so that he could get maximum exposure, twice. He didn’t bother to respond.

This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own. This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place.



But IMHO, Dr. Steig bears responsibility too, he should have said “no”, realizing what a conflict of interest this was.

He confirms in the latest RealClimate essay that he was in fact “Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft. This is due to the fact that JoC had to bring in another reviewer to break the 88 page log jam created by “Reviewer A”.

The analysis of the difference between the 3rd and 4th (final) drafts at Climate Audit reveal this:


MrPete

Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

Here is a comparison of Rev 3 and Rev 4. All text changes are marked up — including totally minor changes. I hope this works for the reader. (Personally, I would primarily trust this to provide pointers to areas of change as it is not obvious how to reliably discern exactly what the old/new text was.)

To my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the changes appear relatively minor.

Perhaps one of the authors can speak authoritatively on a) whether Wm C’s question (about round 4 reviews) has any standing, and b) whether Eric Steig’s disclaimer (based on not having seen these changes) is appropriate.

So it seems Dr. Steig’s complaint is empty, and the situation mostly a result of his own doings. Still it points back to the failure of peer review at JoC. They should not have invited Dr. Steig to be a reviewer in the first place. had they not, this whole ugly row would be non-existent."


“Reviewer A” responds | Watts Up With That?

I can point to a host of things that are "wrong", nevermind the complete lack of context for what you are asking me to assess.

The biggest problem is the journal not recognizing it's own internal conflict of interest. The next problem is a reviewer claiming that people with published opposing viewpoints should not be permitted to review.

Obviously from the text, it's not that he has an opposing viewpoint, it's his clear conflict of interest, and his actions only cement that. Anyone who has reviewed knows that a review is only about two pages (five, maximum). He wrote 88 pages of empty comments. Because of that, he effectively held back publication for quite a long time. It's reminiscent of a congressman reading the entire yellow pages to prevent passage of a bill.

Filibusters are not appropriate in peer-review, nor is promoting any agenda except good science.

Why am I not surprised he missed that part?

 

[westwall]

OK. Of course prestige of journal and large circulation is irrelevant to authors.

You asked how the peer-review process can be corrupted, I answered how it can be, and how it actually WAS corrupted. I also mentioned that the peer-review process is the currency of dissemination of scientific knowledge. That means that the only information about science that has any value in science is peer-reviewed information.

What is unclear to you?

Oh. Well, I was understanding that we were talking about science, here. So, when you brought that up, obviously you were talking about something other than science.

I wonder what the name of his universities journal is......and if anyone has even heard of it.

Don't be stupid. The general public is typically familiar with exactly TWO peer-reviewed science Journals: Nature and Science.

The journal from our University has approximately 7000 cites and a Web of Science impact factor of over 3. It's not Nature, but it's far from unheard.

So, what's the name of your unis' journal?

 

[8537]

I wonder what the name of his universities journal is......and if anyone has even heard of it.

Don't be stupid. The general public is typically familiar with exactly TWO peer-reviewed science Journals: Nature and Science.

The journal from our University has approximately 7000 cites and a Web of Science impact factor of over 3. It's not Nature, but it's far from unheard.

So, what's the name of your unis' journal?

I've given as much personal information as I care to give. You can compare those JCR figures to get some idea how established the journal is.

 

[Si modo]

Don't be stupid. The general public is typically familiar with exactly TWO peer-reviewed science Journals: Nature and Science.

The journal from our University has approximately 7000 cites and a Web of Science impact factor of over 3. It's not Nature, but it's far from unheard.

So, what's the name of your unis' journal?

I've given as much personal information as I care to give. You can compare those JCR figures to get some idea how established the journal is.

How odd that you discuss journal impact, yet marginalize corruption of peer-review at prestigious journals.

 

[8537]

So, what's the name of your unis' journal?

I've given as much personal information as I care to give. You can compare those JCR figures to get some idea how established the journal is.

How odd that you discuss journal impact, yet marginalize corruption of peer-review at prestigious journals.

Why is that odd? Someone asked the name of the journal, clearly attempting to discredit it as irrelevant and meaningless - even though at the same time you're claiming that larger journals are meaningless because the peer review process is corrupted and broken.

So instead of divulging personal information I gave the impact figures form Web of Science.

Remind my why that would be odd, exactly?

 

[Si modo]

I've given as much personal information as I care to give. You can compare those JCR figures to get some idea how established the journal is.

How odd that you discuss journal impact, yet marginalize corruption of peer-review at prestigious journals.

Why is that odd? Someone asked the name of the journal, clearly attempting to discredit it as irrelevant and meaningless - even though at the same time you're claiming that larger journals are meaningless because the peer review process is corrupted and broken.

So instead of divulging personal information I gave the impact figures form Web of Science.

Remind my why that would be odd, exactly?

I am not nor have I ever said that the larger journals are meaningless.

Now, to my basic question to you to establish some foundation in discussion: Do you agree that corruption of the peer-review process at the more prestigious journals is a problem?

 

[8537]

How odd that you discuss journal impact, yet marginalize corruption of peer-review at prestigious journals.

Why is that odd? Someone asked the name of the journal, clearly attempting to discredit it as irrelevant and meaningless - even though at the same time you're claiming that larger journals are meaningless because the peer review process is corrupted and broken.

So instead of divulging personal information I gave the impact figures form Web of Science.

Remind my why that would be odd, exactly?

I am not nor have I ever said that the larger journals are meaningless.

Now, to my basic question to you to establish some foundation in discussion: Do you agree that corruption of the peer-review process at the more prestigious journals is a problem?

Eh, yes - of course it's a problem. Thanks for asking. It's a problem at all levels of the process, not just the prestigious journals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sis never says anything that she can be pinned down on. Just disseminates doubt.

Peer reviewed journals reflect the current state of the science. The peer review keeps shoddy work from being published, at least most of the time.

 

[Si modo]

Why is that odd? Someone asked the name of the journal, clearly attempting to discredit it as irrelevant and meaningless - even though at the same time you're claiming that larger journals are meaningless because the peer review process is corrupted and broken.

So instead of divulging personal information I gave the impact figures form Web of Science.

Remind my why that would be odd, exactly?

I am not nor have I ever said that the larger journals are meaningless.

Now, to my basic question to you to establish some foundation in discussion: Do you agree that corruption of the peer-review process at the more prestigious journals is a problem?

Eh, yes - of course it's a problem. Thanks for asking. It's a problem at all levels of the process, not just the prestigious journals.

Cool. Thanks for the response. So, when there IS corruption, should those of us who do see the value of integrity in the peer-review process, admonish that, or just remain silent?

 

[westwall]

Sis never says anything that she can be pinned down on. Just disseminates doubt.

Peer reviewed journals reflect the current state of the science. The peer review keeps shoddy work from being published, at least most of the time.

As usual you are wrong. Si is establishing a baseline. Without a baseline you can not measure. If you can not measure you can not do research. Understand?

I thought not.

 

[Si modo]

Sis never says anything that she can be pinned down on. Just disseminates doubt.

Peer reviewed journals reflect the current state of the science. The peer review keeps shoddy work from being published, at least most of the time.

And Rocks has issues with women and with reading comprehension.

Perhaps you will read the entire thread.

 

[8537]

I am not nor have I ever said that the larger journals are meaningless.

Now, to my basic question to you to establish some foundation in discussion: Do you agree that corruption of the peer-review process at the more prestigious journals is a problem?

Eh, yes - of course it's a problem. Thanks for asking. It's a problem at all levels of the process, not just the prestigious journals.

Cool. Thanks for the response. So, when there IS corruption, should those of us who do see the value of integrity in the peer-review process, admonish that, or just remain silent?

This is a silly line of questioning. It goes without saying that corruption in the process at any journal should be addressed.

If you have suggestions for reform, I'm all ears. It's not a great system, but it's better than any alternative I've seen proposed.

 

[Si modo]

Eh, yes - of course it's a problem. Thanks for asking. It's a problem at all levels of the process, not just the prestigious journals.

Cool. Thanks for the response. So, when there IS corruption, should those of us who do see the value of integrity in the peer-review process, admonish that, or just remain silent?

This is a silly line of questioning. It goes without saying that corruption in the process at any journal should be addressed.

If you have suggestions for reform, I'm all ears. It's not a great system, but it's better than any alternative I've seen proposed.

Well, it may be a silly line of questioning, but I like to make sure I understand what folks are saying.

Thank you for answering. We are definitely on the same page, then.

I imagine I wouldn't be wrong in assuming that you are a fan of scientific integrity, as well, based on my understanding of your position?

 

[Meister]

When was science impartial? Back when the cigarette companies were paying scientists to tell everyone that smoking was just dandy?

Kinda like man made global warm now, isn't it?

 

[8537]

Cool. Thanks for the response. So, when there IS corruption, should those of us who do see the value of integrity in the peer-review process, admonish that, or just remain silent?

This is a silly line of questioning. It goes without saying that corruption in the process at any journal should be addressed.

If you have suggestions for reform, I'm all ears. It's not a great system, but it's better than any alternative I've seen proposed.

Well, it may be a silly line of questioning, but I like to make sure I understand what folks are saying.

Thank you for answering. We are definitely on the same page, then.

I imagine I wouldn't be wrong in assuming that you are a fan of scientific integrity, as well, based on my understanding of your position?

Indeed. The original topic of this thread was the politicization of science (and journalism) and I believe the recent polarization in society is reflected in the journal process as well. The difference is that science can actually reach verifiable conclusions, and the politicization of science slows that process - and prevents policy from being adopted.

 

[Si modo]

This is a silly line of questioning. It goes without saying that corruption in the process at any journal should be addressed.

If you have suggestions for reform, I'm all ears. It's not a great system, but it's better than any alternative I've seen proposed.

Well, it may be a silly line of questioning, but I like to make sure I understand what folks are saying.

Thank you for answering. We are definitely on the same page, then.

I imagine I wouldn't be wrong in assuming that you are a fan of scientific integrity, as well, based on my understanding of your position?

Indeed. The original topic of this thread was the politicization of science (and journalism) and I believe the recent polarization in society is reflected in the journal process as well. The difference is that science can actually reach verifiable conclusions, and the politicization of science slows that process

....

Exactly.

- and prevents policy from being adopted.

Or prevents policy from not being adopted.